Translational Imaging of the Brain in the Twentieth Century: Patterns and Trends in EEG, CT, and MRI devices

在人文科学和社会科学中已经出现了一种“神经批评”的趋势，即对围绕神经科学的话语和辩论进行分析和问题化（Cooter 2014; Chodhury & Slaby, 2012）。这种“神经批评”避免了未来主义，而是认为神经科学是一种历史上处于文化和政治经济力量网络背景下的企业（Chodhury & Slaby, 2012; Scott Vrecko, 2010）。我通过对20世纪神经科学转化研究的历史研究，以此为基础。目标和研究问题：转化研究被定义为旨在发展基础研究，从中获得治疗和诊断益处的创新（Brosnan & Michael, 2014）。我遵循当前神经批评的趋势，在历史背景下进行翻译研究。是什么历史条件使当前的翻译研究文化成为可能？以前的转译研究模式有切实的结果吗？在翻译研究的各种模型中是否存在一个概念基础？将研究通过图形表示来测量、定义和诊断大脑生理和生物功能的三种技术的背景：脑电图（EEG）、计算机断层扫描（CT）和磁共振成像（MRI）。这种对神经成像的关注允许一个模型来显示这些技术的演变和围绕它们构建的转化实践。研究框架：利用独特的和很少研究的档案，将显示每项技术是如何设想和在基础研究中使用的。利用这些和医学研究委员会的记录，我研究了基础研究是如何转化为临床政策的。伯顿神经学研究所的论文将成为探索20世纪40-60年代脑电图研究（BURD）的基础，以及20世纪70年代CT研究和70 -80年代后期MRI研究的Isherwood论文，其中Brian Worthington （PBW）和Peter Mansfield （PMP）的论文也将被使用。文献综述：博克（2012）指出，当代神经科学话语中缺乏适当的模型。先前的心智模型和隐喻定义和塑造了神经科学活动，而当代神经成像已经成为神经科学话语的“媒介和信息”（Borck 2012, 129）。神经图像是一种自我支持的证明，使它们很难被批评。（Borck 2012; Cooter 2014）。这允许灵活性和解释的灵活性，允许关于神经的结论往往超出脑电图、CT和MRI能够准确测量的范围（Dumit 2004; Borck 2016）。定义一个清晰的神经科学大脑模型将打开一个合作的空间。方法论：以Hacking的“校准/验证”（1995,pp. 98-99）为研究规划提供了概念基础。在这个模型中，测量或量化一种现象的新技术通常要经历一个过程，在这个过程中，它们要与先前建立的判断、测量或实验结果进行核对。通过这个镜头来观察神经科学有助于展示神经成像是根据什么样的判断来校准的。这样，在翻译研究中使用的大脑类别就可以更清晰地勾勒出坚实的界限。然后可以使用Hacking的“分类循环”进行扩展；新神经科学家在类别被接受后与之互动的过程（Chodhury & Slaby 2012, p. 8）。除了强调神经科学领域工作实践的遗产，如转化研究，循环模型是一个起点，从公认的神经科学研究类别和方法中推导出当前的神经科学模型。

There has been a move within the humanities and social sciences towards a 'neuro-criticism', to analyse and problematize the discourse and debates surrounding the neurosciences (Cooter 2014; Chodhury & Slaby, 2012). This 'neuro-criticism' avoids futurism, instead arguing that the neurosciences are a historically-situated enterprise contextualised in a web of cultural and political-economic forces (Chodhury & Slaby, 2012; Scott Vrecko, 2010). I build upon this discourse through a historical study of neuroscientific translational research in the 1900s.Objectives and Research Questions:Translational research is defined as the aim to develop basic research from which innovations of therapeutic and diagnostic benefit are derived (Brosnan & Michael, 2014). I follow current trends in neuro-criticism to ground translational research in a historical context. What are the historical conditions that have made the current culture of translational research possible? Have prior models of translational research had a tangible result? Is there a conceptual underpinning that runs through the various models of translational research?The context of 3 technologies that have been used to measure, define, and diagnose physiological and biological functions of the brain via graphical representation will be studied: Electroencephalographs (EEG), Computerised Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). This focus on neuroimaging allows for a model that shows the evolution of such technologies and the translational practices that were structured around them. Research Framework:Drawing on distinct and little studied archives will show how each technology was envisioned and used in basic research. Using these and the records of the Medical Research Council, I examine how basic research was translated into clinical policy.The papers of the Burden Neurological Institute will be the basis to explore EEG research in the 1940-60s (BURD, and the Isherwood papers for both CT Research in the 1970s and MRI research in the late 1970s-80s, for which the papers of Brian Worthington (PBW) and Peter Mansfield (PMP) will also be used.Literature Review:The lack of an appropriate model in contemporary neuroscientific discourse is noted by Borck (2012). Whereas prior models and metaphors of mind had defined and shaped neuroscientific activities, contemporary neuroimaging has become the 'medium and message' (Borck 2012, 129) of neuroscientific discourse. Neuro images are a self-supporting justification of themselves, making them difficult to critique. (Borck 2012; Cooter 2014). This allows for a mobility and interpretive flexibility that allows for conclusions regarding the neuro that often go beyond what EEG, CT, and MRI are capable of accurately measuring (Dumit 2004; Borck 2016). Defining a clearly outlined model of the neuroscientific brain will open a collaborative space.Methodology:Building on Hacking's ideas of "calibration/validation" (1995, pp. 98-99) provides a conceptual basis for the research planning. In this model, new technologies that measure or quantify a phenomenon, typically undergoes a process where they are checked against previously established judgements, measurements or experimental results. Viewing neuroscience through this lens helps to show what judgements neuroimaging has been calibrated against. In doing so, the categories of brain used in translational research can be more clearly outlined with solid boundaries. This can then be extended using Hacking's "classificatory looping"; a process by which new neuroscientists interact with the categories after they have become accepted (Chodhury & Slaby 2012, p. 8). As well as highlighting the legacy of working practices in areas of the neuroscience, such as translational research, the model of looping is a starting point from which to derive the current neuroscientific model from the accepted categories and methods of neuroscientific investigation.